posted at 11:10 am on January 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

People say they like Newt Gingrich because he fights even if he doesn’t always win, which reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s assessment of Ulysses Grant as commander of the Union army in the Civil War. (Say, this historian stuff is catching, isn’t it?) Mitt Romney wants to show people that he can fight with a little passion, too. In a press avail in Florida, Romney went back on the attack against Gingrich, demanding once again that the former Speaker put his money where his mouth used to be on Freddie Mac (via Greg Hengler):

He said, in a debate actually, that people who profited from the failed model of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ought to give back their money. Well, the Speaker made 1.7 million dollars in his enterprises from providing services to Freddie Mac. He ought to give it back.

At this late date, it’s hard to remember what came first: the Freddie or the Bain. It was Newt’s attack on Bain, but not by much, as Romney immediately went after Gingrich on the contract with Freddie and Gingrich’s Tiffany credit line. Neither attack should put either candidate in a very good light with conservatives; both play on the kind of class warfare that Republicans usually deride, and which Democrats use much more effectively in any case. It’s a measure of the hardball that both will play in Florida, which both need to put together an argument for long-term support in the primaries.

Mitt Romney landed here Sunday with a simple message: Newt Gingrich is a failure and a fraud. And a disgrace. And a hapless showman.

Standing under a brilliant orange Florida sunset, Romney delivered his longest sustained critique of the South Carolina primary winner to date — ticking through a list as if he were reading off Gingrich’s Wikipedia page, and undercutting each item as he got to it.

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.

Romney continued: “He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.”

Then Romney got into Gingrich’s post-congressional career.

“Over the last 15 years since he left the House, he talks about great bold movements and ideas,” he told the crowd of several hundred people gathered at a building materials company here. “Well, what’s he been doing for 15 years? He’s been working as a lobbyist, yeah, he’s been working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington.”

Well, no one can accuse Romney of not demonstrating an attack offense on the campaign trail.

Newt Gingrich said on Monday that he has requested the release of his consulting contract with Freddie Mac, adding that it would be “very helpful” if the release came before next week’s Florida primary contest.

Asked if he will release the consulting contract between his former company, the Center for Health Transformation, and Freddie Mac, Gingrich told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos: “We asked them to work out releasing it. They have a number of confidentiality agreements. I’m very comfortable with it being released.”

“I think it would be very helpful,” Gingrich said, when asked if he would like the release to occur before the primary.

Presumably, Freddie Mac won’t have an issue with it, since the amount of Gingrich’s fees have already been revealed. The confidentiality agreements probably have more to do with proprietary information that wouldn’t have to be released with the contract, and getting Gingrich’s approval for transparency should allow Freddie Mac to have those contracts in the hands of the media, perhaps early enough so that Florida voters can read them. However, even if Freddie refuses or drags their heels, Gingrich has already checked Romney’s attack. By volunteering his approval for release, Gingrich has sent the message that there isn’t anything in the contract that will embarrass him or Republicans, even if it does remind people that he performed some kind of work for Freddie Mac while it was setting itself up for a collapse.

As for returning the money, it won’t happen, nor should it, if Gingrich and his firm delivered the promised services for which he was to be compensated. But perhaps Gingrich should have kept that in mind before shooting off his own mouth a couple of years ago about others like him who made money from relationships with Freddie Mac.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The link does not work with the filter, but you can easily find this info in a search.

CNN headline:

IRS clears Newt Gingrich’s college course

“The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught.

After considering the matter for three and a half years, the IRS issued a “technical advice memorandum” finding no violation of tax laws in the use of a tax-exempt entity to sponsor Gingrich’s course, “Renewing American Civilization.”

What Clinton and Newt did were wrong, but the constant nagging about this issue instead of concentrating on the country’s problems is not really helping your cause.

Rose on January 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM

It’s a matter of character. People who have train wrecks of a past are likely to have train wrecks of a future. Really, Please tell me if this is what it’s come down to, that we are willing to forget about having a good character in our choice of people to lead the USA as long as this lying blowhard can get cheers at what idiots the debate moderators are? Is that really enough?

My apologies for the error. Then and than.. does that invalidate what I wrote?

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM

It makes you corrupt and dishonorable based on your own rules. You decide and get back to us. It will reflect upon your credibility what you chose to claim. I for one am totally willing to let it slide without reprimand.

You know quite well – or should know – that the 501c3 was set up and operated absolutely legally and correctly.

Or are you saying the IRS was wrong when they said that?

Solaratov on January 23, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I do know. And had you read this thread, you would find my comments and links that dealt with his ethics violations. The sub committee referred the tax issue to the IRS and sanctioned Gingrich for lies he told to the sub committee and for unethical behavior. The house agreed by a huge margin and then they drummed him out of the house in utter disgrace. He even resigned his congressional seat.

If you look, you can find the actual transcript of the committee’s report. It is all in there.

I will not support the only corrupt politician in the raced who has a history of betraying the sacred public trust (along with his wives). I have 3 other choices when my primary day arrives. I pray the GOP has come to their senses and drummed Gingrich out of this race in disgrace also.

Please notice that the $300,000 is stated as a reimbursement for some of the cost of the investigation. I don’t know if that is officially considered a fine by the House, but it was not stated that the $300,000 was to be paid for any other reason.

Please notice that the committee only stated his conduct didn’t reflect creditably because he didn’t seek and follow legal advice on the IRS code and because he should have known the information was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. It does not say that he knew.

From Part 1 of report:

Page 10-11 of the PDF, pages 2-3 of report:

On January 7, 1997, the House conveyed the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich to the Select Committee on Ethics by its adoption of clause 4(e)(3) of rule X, as contained in House Resolution 5.

On January 17, 1997, the Select Committee on Ethics held a sanction hearing in the matter pursuant to committee rule 20. Following the sanction hearing, the Select Committee ordered a report to the House, by a roll call vote of 7-1, recommending that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and ordered to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000. The following Members voted aye: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Goss, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Borski, and Mr. Sawyer. The following Member voted no: Mr. Smith of Texas.

The adoption of this report by the House shall constitute such a reprimand and order of reimbursement….

Page 17 PDF, page 9 of report:

D. Statement of Alledged Violation

On December 21, 1996, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alledged Violation stating that Mr. Gingrich had engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in that by failing to seek and follow legal advice, Mr. Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that activities with respect to the AOW/ACTV project and the Renewing American Civilization project were in accordance with section 501(c)(3) [of the Internal Revenue Code]; and that on or about December 8, 1994, and on or about March 27, 1995, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

On December 21, 1996, Mr. Gingrich filed an answer with the Subcommittee admitting to this violation of House Rules.

Again, please notice that the committee only stated his conduct didn’t reflect creditably because he didn’t seek and follow legal advice on the IRS code and because he should have known the information was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. It does not say that he knew. Nor does it give a specific House rule.

In Florida, got my mail and it had 3 flyers from Romney, 2 were anti-Santorum, 1 pro-Romney, no Newt. I was thinking he wants to run off Santorum and get the more devout folks, since he can just compare his family to Newts. The website on flyers was “floridavotecenter.com” which resolves to “restoreourfuture.com”. It’s pretty basic.

Newt can just go “Why doesn’t Romney release the Hard Drives that he bought at the end of his term, unprecedented btw”…that’s the zinger, not sure if Newt will do it.

The sanctions against Gingrich were for corrupt behavior. The way one governs, right, left, or center, is a matter of preference.

And arguments for moral relativity in the conservative movement is a non starter. Right from the start we need incorruptible candidates. Gingrich has proven by his actions with his wives and his behavior as speaker, that his is a character of corrupt behavior when it suits him.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You DO know that he was exhonoratored by the IRS on the Democrat-filed charge of Tax Evasion? and that the $300,000 was supposedly to do with reimbursing the Committee? And that the whole hullabaloo was over teaching a college class that he’d been teaching years before he served as Speaker? Can’t wait for the Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangle reimbursement checks to arrive.

As regards Freddy, he was a contractor with a set fee. The people he was called to give the money back were the officers who pressed for volume of subprime loans to enrich themselves—like the $90+ million that went to Raines. The Gingrich Group received payments for services over a six to eight year period. And since when are companies “corrupt” for competing for government contracts?

That’s what gets me with the Romney attacks here. He screams about an attack on capitalism but he started it by attacking Newt for his free enterprise business.

Newt never lobbied. Never. I have absolutely no idea what Romney did at Bain or if Bain did, indeed, merely buy troubled companies and sucked out the assets and left them to flounder because of the debt. How is that different from the Robber Barons who used money to suck up all assets to control prices?

You do pay $300,000 if you admit you made an error, which he did, and that you know the trial is going to go on for years into the future.

So he DID mislead the congress… The original statement was “You have to prove Newt did something corrupted”.

Do you truly think that is an ETHICS violation?

I think your characterization of what he did is wrong and misleading. It’s spin from the Gingrich campaign to cover the fact that he was caught lying.

Grow the hell up and be as big a MAN AS NEWT was and admit your freaking error and take the consequences like the MAN GINGRICH did for such a minor error.

Really getting sick of you acting like an obnoxious toady. Grow up? I’m not the one hopping on the latest trend to make myself feel good at the expense of the country. Grow up? Look at the polls and realize you are throwing away another election, one that is VITAL for us to win. Don’t tell me to man up when you are acting like a spoiled child who wants a toy and the country can go to hel! as long as you get it.

Your choice, but every time you bring this up, I am going to slap your corupted loser self down to the mat with facts.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

In January 1997, Gingrich said “I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee.”

Thought he wasn’t corrupt.

A far far bigger man than you, your allies or Romney will ever be. He admits his failure

And then he goes on to make more…A pattern of selfish decisions and lousy character isn’t made OK by saying “my bad”.

When we cut to the chase, all that is left are the statements Gingrich makes and how the bipartisan committee and the entire house membership judged him.

He admitted providing inaccurate and misleading statements. With all the evidence in hand, the bipartisan committee considered him to be lying and held him responsible for his signed statements. The entire house membership, when presented with the results from the bipartisan committee, agreed that Gingrich was lying and acted unethically in respect with the rules of the house. He was sanctioned and then fined $300,000 to repay the cost of the investigation. Then the membership drummed him out in disgrace.

Do you think it is more likely that a serial adulterer and admitted liar is guilty or that 400+ members of the house had it out for him?

2.) if we are doing clawbacks, then Romney needs to give back all the money he and Bain made on the companies they were too incompetent to manage that they then looted of capital and took that money for themselves while they threw the employees on the street and on to the taxpayer dole via unemployment and other public assistance benefits

Again, please notice that the committee only stated his conduct didn’t reflect creditably because he didn’t seek and follow legal advice on the IRS code and because he should have known the information was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. It does not say that he knew. Nor does it give a specific House rule.

Now, again, can you say political witch hunt? IMO, yes.

INC on January 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yup. Thank you.

This is the speaker of the house, not some junior representative. His entire party judged him to be a liar (he admitted lying) and they drummed him out in disgrace.

Those are the facts and trying to call it a political witch hunt is moral relativity of the worst kind.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Why are you accusing him of lying when that isn’t even in the report or the complaint? And it was, indeed, a witch hunt. Much like that Sarah Palin endured over “ethics”. Why don’t you mention how he was exhonorated by the IRS?

“US”. Someone nominate you spokesman for the bandwagon? You do realize that’s why you are now slavishly supporting Gingrich this week. You want to be a part of the group, your insecurity is being played upon and it’s going to screw over the country. You aren’t that much different from the occupy crowd. What trend is it going to be next week?

I quoted from the Primary Document: The House Report. That was their decision.

Go read it.

Go see footnote 88 at the bottom of page 93 of the report, page 103 of the PDF. Gingrich insisted upon a change from “knew” to “should have known,” before he would admit to the SAV and agree with the sanction.

This is the speaker of the house, not some junior representative. His entire party judged him to be a liar (he admitted lying) and they drummed him out in disgrace.

Those are the facts and trying to call it a political witch hunt is moral relativity of the worst kind.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I’ll put Newt’s got welfare reform and blanced budgets ethics over the we increased spending and passed progressive laws (R) party people every time.

So, now that we know you support those people who would rather increase their power as saints over the person who was willing to give up power while in the office to have that power as corrupt, your value as a conservative is non existant.

I can knock you down all day. Remember congress, the people you are saying have such great morals has like 9% support of the people. I think Newt is standing on strong ground.

So, the mittster did invest in f&f.
Solaratov on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

He did.
But Romney making money off the US housing downturn is OK…
because “Buy Danish” is a shill.
Notice how Mittbots use the “It wasn’t that much money to Mitt” line of reasoning.
tetriskid on January 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

This is what the the moron contingent of Hot Air thinks is a scandal. Investing in a Government Obligation Fund via Federated Investors:

Highlights

Pursues current income consistent with stability of principal and liquidity.
Invests primarily in short-term U.S. Treasury and government securities.
Includes repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury and government agency securities for higher yield potential than a Treasury-exclusive portfolio.
Holds AAAm, Aaa-mf and AAAmmf ratings from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch, respectively.
On National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) List.*
Gives investors more time to complete daily cash processing and initiate late-day deposit transactions through 5 p.m. EST cut-off time for purchases and redemptions.

The Net Asset Value has DECLINED since 2007 from 5.08 to its current value of>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.01.

“US”. Someone nominate you spokesman for the bandwagon? You do realize that’s why you are now slavishly supporting Gingrich this week. You want to be a part of the group, your insecurity is being played upon and it’s going to screw over the country. You aren’t that much different from the occupy crowd. What trend is it going to be next week?

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I supported Bachmann until she dropped out of the race. I supported Newt all along while I supported Bachmann. My support of Newt goes way back a couple months ago, while he was in single digits. I stayed aay from Cain, I initially joined Perry, but as he rose, I decided I could not trust him as he was intransigent on certain issues, much like Romney is on other issues.

So, go ahead and try and argue I am a fair weather friend all you want.

I have a certain amount of empathy for all of these candidates. Perhaps that comes from having been a Perry supporter, lol. It seems to me that Mitt just isn’t getting the job done articulating why conservatives are right. Maybe because he isn’t one? Or he just doesn’t have that ability? I don’t know. Anyone hear Rush today? He absolutely nailed why Gingrich won in SC.

Anyway, Romney is coming across as being very desperate right now, and that is not going to benefit him with Florida looming so close. I think we may see another defeat for him.

The issue about Newt’t tax violation investigations and the millions he made of lobbying isn’t one of legality rather of optics.

The ethics violation is similar to Ron Paul’s newsletters problems.

joana on January 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If you are worried about optics, go watch the movie at Winning The Future. I think Americans might take note of people losing their jobs as companies are taken over, more than they are worried about a Speaker who was railroaded in a political witch hunt.

I don’t see Gingrich’s ethics complaints any different than the witch hunt suffered by Sarah Palin when she began to step on the power toes of the establishment. The fact that the IRS cleared Newt eventually from the last item reinforces the fact that he was railroaded.

Mitt sounds like a whiney assed crybaby in the news clips that I am watching today. He hasn’t said anything positive about WHY Floridians should vote for him. Instead he tears down his opponent.

She earned some money while she was pregnant organizing the Romneys’ basement. The Romneys also arranged for her to do odd jobs for other church members, who knew she needed the cash. “Mitt was really good to us. He did a lot for us,” Hayes said. Then Romney called Hayes one winter day and said he wanted to come over and talk. He arrived at her apartment in Somerville, a dense, largely working-class city just north of Boston. They chitchatted for a few minutes. Then Romney said something about the church’s adoption agency. Hayes initially thought she must have misunderstood. But Romney’s intent became apparent: he was urging her to give up her soon-to-be-born son for adoption, saying that was what the church wanted. Indeed, the church encourages adoption in cases where “a successful marriage is unlikely.

Officious, judgmental and ties his dog to the roof of his car for 12 hours.

I can knock you down all day. Remember congress, the people you are saying have such great morals has like 9% support of the people. I think Newt is standing on strong ground.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Because popularity equals right. Do’t get me wrong, the 9% seems high, but that seems to be the way this decision is being made. Where’s the next fad to adopt so we can feel like we are a part of a movement…. Sorry, I don’t need that.

Newt converted to his “new” religion to convince his 3rd bride that he was a changed man. And since Calista may have had some “daddy” issues while pining for this statesmen 23 years her elder- it was necessary to seal the deal. Who knew.

FlaMurph on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

People like you are the reason I quit going to church.

People like you are evil. Eaten up on the inside by your own bile. All the while professing your sanctimony.

I have a certain amount of empathy for all of these candidates. Perhaps that comes from having been a Perry supporter, lol. It seems to me that Mitt just isn’t getting the job done articulating why conservatives are right. Maybe because he isn’t one? Or he just doesn’t have that ability? I don’t know. Anyone hear Rush today? He absolutely nailed why Gingrich won in SC.

Anyway, Romney is coming across as being very desperate right now, and that is not going to benefit him with Florida looming so close. I think we may see another defeat for him.

kg598301 on January 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I firmly believe that this just isn’t the election cycle where Mitt has an electoral advantage. Obama has effectively set Mitt up to be the eeevvvvillll 1% in Obama’s class warfare campaign, since Obama was anticipating that Mitt is “inevitable”. Obama has misread the electorate.

The people are sick and tired of the permanent political class and establishment. Newt has tapped into that. Newt is also tapping in to how disgusted we are that me have pantywaists whiney crybabies who don’t respond to the extremely biased narrative in the media.

I supported Bachmann until she dropped out of the race. I supported Newt all along while I supported Bachmann. […] I initially joined Perry, but as he rose, I decided I could not trust him as he was intransigent on certain issues,
So, go ahead and try and argue I am a fair weather friend all you want.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Well… You are on your 3rd candidate. The worst of the 3 actually. One wonders if Ron Paul were to jiggle his keys in your peripheral vision you might move on, now THERE’s a bandwagon for you.

“Gingrich said he didn’t remember exactly how much he was paid, but a former Freddie Mac official said it was at least $1.5 million for consulting contracts stretching from 1999 to 2007. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.”

Not exactly 20 years ago.

Priscilla on January 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM

$1.6million over eight years = $200,000/year. Didn’t your esteemed pResident d’ohbama set 200K/year as the cutoff point for “wealthy”?

Because popularity equals right. Do’t get me wrong, the 9% seems high, but that seems to be the way this decision is being made. Where’s the next fad to adopt so we can feel like we are a part of a movement…. Sorry, I don’t need that.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM

You try to attack a man who was unjustly persecuted with the charges he was unjustly persecuted with. You have no shame, you have no honor, you have no credibility.

So what? Adoption is their church’s policy, a church she voluntarily belongs to, just as Catholics have their policies, and so on. Single mothers living in poverty don’t tend to have good outcomes and I suppose they believe it’s in the best interest of the child to be put up for adoption. She was free to leave the church and she did (and your own link states how well the Romney’s treated her).

That’s what’s so great about having the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. If Mitt were to make this public policy and force this on everyone, you’d have a reason to fret. But nothing like this has ever occurred so you can rest assured your liberty will not be infringed upon.

He’s a Washington lobbyist, getting paid millions of tax payer dollars for his influence from the same democrat cronies who brought us the housing bubble and the recession. And he’s running as an outsider…
That’s all.

Well… You are on your 3rd candidate. The worst of the 3 actually. One wonders if Ron Paul were to jiggle his keys in your peripheral vision you might move on, now THERE’s a bandwagon for you.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Feel free to go down with your ship. It really goes to show that your only concern is for your personal wants and has nothing to do with any degree of love for country that you are so involved to the point of insanity in pushing for one single outcome.

He’s a Washington lobbyist, getting paid millions of tax payer dollars for his influence from the same democrat cronies who brought us the housing bubble and the recession. And he’s running as an outsider…
That’s all.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM

You are a slanderous worthless pig with no lipstick. You keep making charges and have yet to bring any evidence. You are the lowest form of life on the threads here. Newt is not and was not a Lobbyist, saying so makes you a LIAR. it also goes to your character than when you are shown your accustations are false you keep repeating it, much like the progressives do. Tell a lie long enough and maybe people will believe it. It is almost like Romney and all his followers are progressive alinskyites…
So for all your reading pleasrue, a repeat from earlier.

Romney, The Republican version of Obama. Romney, the Obamanization of the Republican Party.

Too thin skin to stand up to any scrutiny, so anyone who attacks him must be shut down to prevent any and all debate about him. The entire establishment sphere has circled the wagons around Romney and will attack anyone who gets close to defeating him.

An extraordinarily thin conservative resume, so much so that any actual discussion of his past must be prefaced with, he had no other choice than to do progressive things, but as president he will be so dreamy. Of course, they do not talk about his past much, in fact massively large amounts of his past are completely out of bounds for investigation. His time as governor, no records remain, it seems that he destroyed all the government records that were created on government computers on government time doing government business. All of his business experience that he himself does not put out there is off limits from investigations, and it is a fact that if Romney says that he did something good, it it too good to verify.

A major lack of accomplishment, as evidenced by his defense when attacked, he was not there, he was not making those decisions, the state congress was 80% democrat so he did not have any input to those bills. It is like he was voting present in almost every single activity he does not want to claim as an accomplishment.

No responsibility, as shown by the fact that he deflects almost everything by claiming that other people were responsible. Anything that seems good, he did it. Anything that seems bad, it was always other people. You know, aids, business partners, he was on vacation that week, the legislature made him do it, it was a veto proof majority he faced (as if he did not know that going in) and the list goes on and on and on.

Extraordinary low class in giving gifts, Sent a birthday cake to Newt Gingrich for the anniversary of his ethics charges trial, the only Speaker of the House to have been railroaded through ethics charges and fined $300,000 and to be later found not guilty. Using such a blatant miscarriage of justice to try to score political points is extremely low class, much like Obama giving the Queen an iPod with all his greatest speeches on it.

In campaign ad after campaign ad Romney’s supporters slander and lie beyond the pale, and Romney has just enough distance between him and his old business partners and allies to claim he is above the fray. I have no control over what others say in my name. Is that really true? People are allowed to use your name for any purpose, particularly to slander other campaigns?

On the internet Romney’s allies spend their time shutting down debate and demonizing anyone who does not support Romney. No level of discourse is too underhanded for them, and no amount of lies and falsehoods would quell their hate for people who support other candidates. The debate is over, Romney is inevitable, and an outsider, who has the support of every single establishment person who has a pulse.

Backed back the big names in wall street, those who love to get their crony capitalism before 8Am sharp every day and want to ensure that the too big to fail mantra reigns supreme in the next presidency.

Romney, the Obamanization of the Republican Party. We even have a new shut down the debate talking point that fits in with Alinskyites rather than Republicans. Your anti-capitalist! It works much like Racist! Anti-Science neanderthal! Bible Thumping Witch Hunter! Bigot! as well as many other wonderful progressive debating arguments meant to shut down debate rather than to bring the truth forward.

It is interesting that this anti-capitalist charge is being made by the people who support the man who brought us Romneycare which he called free market capitalism!?! It forces people to buy a product they may or may not want or even are able to afford. It uses taxpayer monies to transfer wealth. It prevents business from providing the services that the customer request. Prevents the customer from getting the services they request. They limit profit on an already low profit business. They control the prices allowed to be charged. At some point they will be forced to cut back on services as other people’s money runs out.

As the Romney supporters pointed out to me, we are a Republic, and that means that just because it is popular does not mean it is constitutional or right. Minorities have rights in this nation, well, except when Romney says otherwise. Massachusetts residents wanted to strip the rights of others and force them to buy insurance and Romney was there to do the dirty work. So that means not only is Romney attacking the free market capitalist segment of our nation, but he is also attacking the republican form of government in which it resides and we all count on for our freedom. Romney, not only anti-capitalist, but anti-republican and thus against the United States of America as it was founded 236 years ago.

I’ll have to muddle on without the approval of easily lead lackey. The fact STILL is he admitted guilt and he STILL paid a fine. Again, you spinning for him and talking about honor is a joke.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

How can that be when you are the one that is an easily lead lackey? makes no sense. He only admitted he failed to read each and every document his lawyers submitted. He paid for part of the cost of the investigation, because his failure to catch that mistake left him accountable for some of the cost.

You have NO HONOR V7_Sport, you have so little HONOR that you hide behind a pseudonym and throw out unsubstantiable attacks.

Newt IS the “permanent political class and establishment”. God… you just gave me an aneurism.
V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM

It’s alternate universe stuff.

He hasn’t said anything positive about WHY Floridians should vote for him. Instead he tears down his opponent.
karenhasfreedom on January 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

What reasons has Newt given as to why we should vote for him? He attacked Bain and capitalism, he’s reminds us he’s a pit bull of a debater, and he ripped into moderator John King. That’s why he won S.C. This is a visceral, emotional response and has little if anything to do with policy…

The ship is the USA, fool. It will go down after you help re-elect Obama because you can be jerked around by such transparent demagoguery.

It really goes to show that your only concern is for your personal wants and has nothing to do with any degree of love for country….

Complete projection.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You really have nothing do you. Nothing at all to use to say, Romney can accomplish something good. All you have is dishonorable attacks against his competition. No wonder your man can outspend Gingrich 7500:1 and still come out behind in the polls compared to when he started spending the money.

What reasons has Newt given as to why we should vote for him? He attacked Bain and capitalism, he’s reminds us he’s a pit bull of a debater, and he ripped into moderator John King. That’s why he won S.C. This is a visceral, emotional response and has little if anything to do with policy…

Buy Danish on January 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It is interesting that this anti-capitalist charge is being made by the people who support the man who brought us Romneycare which he called free market capitalism!?! It forces people to buy a product they may or may not want or even are able to afford. It uses taxpayer monies to transfer wealth. It prevents business from providing the services that the customer request. Prevents the customer from getting the services they request. They limit profit on an already low profit business. They control the prices allowed to be charged. At some point they will be forced to cut back on services as other people’s money runs out.

As the Romney supporters pointed out to me, we are a Republic, and that means that just because it is popular does not mean it is constitutional or right. Minorities have rights in this nation, well, except when Romney says otherwise. Massachusetts residents wanted to strip the rights of others and force them to buy insurance and Romney was there to do the dirty work. So that means not only is Romney attacking the free market capitalist segment of our nation, but he is also attacking the republican form of government in which it resides and we all count on for our freedom. Romney, not only anti-capitalist, but anti-republican and thus against the United States of America as it was founded 236 years ago.

Feel free to get the moderators involved. My comments will withstand the scrutiny.
You have absolutely nothing, nothing at all. You are a very bitter human being. Lashing out, like the animal trapped and unable to get its leg free. Romney certainly has a way of attracting the pests.

The people are sick and tired of the permanent political class and establishment. Newt has tapped into that. Newt is also tapping in to how disgusted we are that me have pantywaists whiney crybabies who don’t respond to the extremely biased narrative in the media.

karenhasfreedom on January 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Yep. I told my husband last week I was gravitating to Newt because he’s a fighter, and that’s what we need- not only to fight against Obama and the media but against the status- quo loving Republicans. Whether you believe Newt would or not, I don’t think Romney even has the ability to do it.

We also need someone to speak for us, and nobody has done that in a very long time.

Great rubber/glue defense. Perfectly in keeping with the level of discourse you have managed to bring here.

He only admitted he failed to read each and every document his lawyers submitted.

Another lie.“I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”
“”In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee, “
So you are lying, and you laughably lecture about honor.

He paid for part of the cost of the investigation,

HE PAID A FINE, LIAR.

You have NO HONOR V7_Sport, you have so little HONOR that you hide behind a pseudonym and throw out unsubstantiable attacks.

Everything I have written is verifiable. You just don’t want to hear it.

.
Newton Leroy is a Professional speech maker- mucho dollars from Newtie speeches. I’m sure he has got some really questionable- probably southern racially tainted- speech organizations with affiliations he has been in front of. Could be a pandora’s box.

FlaMurph on January 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM

But did he make $370,000.00 in a year making speeches — like Mitt did? Perhaps we should look at the affiliations of the organizations that Mittboy has spoken to.

LOL, true, but presented as half the story and twisted into a false tale unworthy of even the rags of the MSM. Everything I said was verifiably true, was placed in full context and included the bad as well as the good.

Calling people pigs, spamming and tossing a tantrum because you are being shown something you don’t want to see isn’t something that will withstand the scrutiny o the people on this forum. You are the quintessence of what’s behind the Gingrich bubble, a mouthy petulant child who likes to throw classless tantrums who is looking for the same in a candidate. Yu are an insecure little follower and you have much to be insecure about.

You have absolutely nothing, nothing at all.

I am a patriot who is tied to people who would rather see the country go down the drain so they can put on a little show of their frustration.

As for returning the money, it won’t happen, nor should it, if Gingrich and his firm delivered the promised services for which he was to be compensated.

So when is a PRIVATE consulting firm an issue with Romney? Is he against “capitalism” now…..
Ok..so I was for capitalism and now that Im against it?

Which is it Mitt?

Desperation reveals character…and Mitt is showing who he really is…again…once in Iowa…and now again. He is a horrible horrible loser. His problem is one thing….he cannot say to Newt, Santorum and Paul…..”you’re fired”!!!

“I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”
“”In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee, “

Because you present those things which are true does not mean you are telling the truth.

Context has meaning.

The order should be reveresed…

Newt failed to catch one error on one sheet of paper out of thousands presented for review on charges that were fully found to have no merit. He took responsibility for that failure and said: “”In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to committee, “ Which I see as a very honorable action for such a trivial mistake.

Due to that mistake which he took full blame for he then also offered: >“I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.” which is true. If he would have caught that error, the controversy would have not been so severe, so his failure did bring on a controversy. He did not want to harm his country by dragging the investigation out over years, as is the wont of all the corrupted Democrats to do, so he settled with the House and took responsibility for his trivial failure. He was exonerated on all charges, and was only guilty of having not vetted every single sheet of paper his lawyers presented in his name.

Now, if you want to refute what I just wrote and say that is not how it went down, fine. Try to do so.

Calling people pigs, spamming and tossing a tantrum because you are being shown something you don’t want to see isn’t something that will withstand the scrutiny o the people on this forum. You are the quintessence of what’s behind the Gingrich bubble, a mouthy petulant child who likes to throw classless tantrums who is looking for the same in a candidate. Yu are an insecure little follower and you have much to be insecure about.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Heh heh. He thinks my fully formed arguments with full context of everything is a tantrum.

That’s a lie. You are lying for a liar and want to lecture about honor. Funny.

Which I see as a very honorable action for such a trivial mistake.

Sure, you have no problem with him cheating on his wives, with him leaving the speakership in disgrace, with him LOBBYING for Freddie and Fanny, etc, etc… I get it. Again, the idea that you have any honor is a joke.
“Due to that mistake which he took full blame”
Really.. full blame, huh.

“He did not want to harm his country by dragging the investigation out over years, “

LOL, so he admitted guilt and left the Speakers position.. What a great guy! You expect people to buy that.

“Now, if you want to refute what I just wrote and say that is not how it went down, fine”

A House ethics subcommittee found Saturday that Speaker Newt Gingrich brought discredit to the House by using tax-exempt money for political purposes, and by providing the committee with “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable information” …. That was the charge and that is what he has admitted to. It’s part of a pattern of lying that Gingrich has that you are OK with. He has a lousy character and that you are willing to go to such lengths to be an apologist for it tells me the same about you.
I can buy the argument that “yes, he has a lousy character but, he fights for whatever” or “Yeah, he’s sleazy but he can debate well” or something along those lines. You claiming that Gingrich is an honorable man just demonstrates you have no concept of what the word means.

I am a patriot who is tied to people who would rather see the country go down the drain so they can put on a little show of their frustration.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I know that was a typo, but I think in the fruedian sense. You said what you really meant.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM

It wasn’t a typo. You would rather see the country go down the drain by running someone unelectable against Obama as long as it means that you were a part of the latest fad.

Heh heh. He thinks my fully formed arguments with full context of everything is a tantrum.

Your spin and spam aren’t fully formed arguments.

Gingrich’s momentum is because he trashes the media in the debates. That appeals to you, it plays on your frustrations with the MSM, you like that. But it isn’t going to win a general election.
Further, all this baggage that you have spun and lied about is going to be trotted out, ad nausium with all the vigor a billion dollars can buy.

I am a patriot who is tied to people who would rather see the country go down the drain so they can put on a little show of their frustration.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I know that was a typo, but I think in the fruedian sense. You said what you really meant.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM
It wasn’t a typo. You would rather see the country go down the drain by running someone unelectable against Obama as long as it means that you were a part of the latest fad.

No, you specifically said that you are tied to people who want to see the country go down. There was no sarcasm at all that I can detect. I do not follow fads. I go on facts and quality and honor. If I buy something, it is because for the price I can or am willing to pay, it is the best available in form fit and function. Same goes for my candidates. For what I want in a representative, Newt is the best person available.

$1.6million over eight years = $200,000/year. Didn’t your esteemed pResident d’ohbama set 200K/year as the cutoff point for “wealthy”?

What’s your gripe?

Solaratov on January 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM

You have got to be kidding. You think I’m an Obama supporter, because I say that Gingrich has significant ethical problems as a potential president? Trust me, I would vote for Newt in a heartbeat if it comes to that…..I just hope it doesn’t.

And, btw, it is “at least” $1.5 million over that period, and most who know of the association say that it is probably considerably more. Frankly, I wouldn’t care if he told the truth about it.

No, you specifically said that you are tied to people who want to see the country go down.

How can I make that any clearer? Yes, you want to dee the country destroyed if you are willing to have Obama for another 4 years.

I do not follow fads. I go on facts and quality and honor

Well, we have established you don’t know what honor is, you are on your 3rd candidate so there goes “fads” so you are left with “quality”. Yeah, Gingrich just screams “quality”.

If I buy something, it is because for the price I can or am willing to pay,

The price is aligning yourself with a scumbag and losing the general election because you enjoy it when the press gets yelled at.

Same goes for my candidates. For what I want in a representative, Newt is the best person available.

So what does that say about you when the best fit is a career politician, the only speaker in US history censured, An ethics violator, someone who was a lobbyist for the democrat controlled entity that brought down the economy and someone who cheated on a wife with cancer to go cheat on a wife with MS? A rhetorical question because in this case it’s probably a good fit.

I am a patriot who is tied to people who would rather see the country go down the drain so they can put on a little show of their frustration.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

That is so very true. Since you admit it was not a typo, thanks for clarifying who you are. I am not the frustrated one. When Newt was losing, I was there arguing the positive case FOR Newt.

If what you want is a government moving in the direction of consitutional and conservative:
He has been there
He has done that
he will do it again.

That was my base argument. A positive one.

What exactly have you done to show why Romney would be the right man for the job? Well, you attack Newt on false ethics violations and refuse to look at the actual event in context to see that it was a miscarriage of justice that was perpetrated against him. Nice negative message you got there. Vote for my guy, because I can attack your guy and make him look bad in my own eyes!

So what does that say about you when the best fit is a career politician, the only speaker in US history censured, An ethics violator, someone who was a lobbyist for the democrat controlled entity that brought down the economy and someone who cheated on a wife with cancer to go cheat on a wife with MS? A rhetorical question because in this case it’s probably a good fit.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What does it say about you as a person when you attack an innocent man with the charges he was found innocent of, even after being corrected many times?
What does it say about you as a person when you attack an innocent man with accustions of being a dreaded lobbyist when you have no evidence but the man you are accusing has evidence to the contrary?
What does it say about you as a person when you bring up personal issues in a person’s life from more than a decade past to attack him with, after he has repented, has not engaged in similar person private life issues since?

I know what you think it says. You think it says you are awesome! You sure are, and here is a gold star for all your efforts.

If what you want is a government moving in the direction of consitutional and conservative:
He has been there
He has done that
he will do it again.

That was my base argument. A positive one.

Your argument assumes that he is telling the truth and stands a chance of winning. Both are highly unlikely.

What exactly have you done to show why Romney would be the right man for the job?

I think a turn around expert is what the economy needs. His running of the Olympics, intervening in the Big Dig and his running of Bain Capital show that he can help shepherd the economy. Regardless, he hasn’t been stupid enough to provide the Obama campaign with everything it needs to defeat him.

Well, you attack Newt on false ethics violations and refuse to look at the actual event in context to see that it was a miscarriage of justice that was perpetrated against him.

Again, he admitted fault.

Vote for my guy, because I can attack your guy and make him look bad in my own eyes!

You haven’t seen anything yet. When the obama spin machine, the PR firms, the ad agencies and the press gets done with him even you will be dragged out of your stupor.

What does it say about you as a person when you attack an innocent man with the charges he was found innocent of, even after being corrected many times?

He admitted guilt. Paid a fine. Saying he was innocent is a lie.

What does it say about you as a person when you attack an innocent man with accustions of being a dreaded lobbyist when you have no evidence but the man you are accusing has evidence to the contrary?

1.6 million dollars paid to Gingrich by Freddy and Fanny. End of story.

What does it say about you as a person when you bring up personal issues in a person’s life from more than a decade past to attack him with,

Character counts with me. It should with you. That it doesn’t is telling.

after he has repented, has not engaged in similar person private life issues since?

Gee, “repenting” seems to be a get out of jail free card. His ex wife doesn’t seem to think so. How do you know what he has done since? Oh yeah, you don’t, you are just saying whatever you feel like to support him.

and here is a gold star for all your efforts.

I don’t think you are an honorable person, and I think you found the candidate that best reflects you.
-going home.

Why are you accusing him of lying when that isn’t even in the report or the complaint? And it was, indeed, a witch hunt. Much like that Sarah Palin endured over “ethics”. Why don’t you mention how he was exhonorated by the IRS?

Portia46 on January 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. If Newt is the nominee, we have a better than 50-40 chance to dump d’ohbama.
If Mittens is the mominee, d’ohbama waltzes back to the white house for four (or more) years.

It’s almost as though some of the rombots actually want to see d’ohbama re-elected; and all of their pious screeching for Mitt is just for show.

You haven’t seen anything yet. When the obama spin machine, the PR firms, the ad agencies and the press gets done with him even you will be dragged out of your stupor.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Unlike you and your candidate, I am not afraid of Newt being Vetted. I know Obama is going to have lots of money and attacks lined up. The thing I do not understand is how you think that Romney is going to stand a chance. Romney can barely attack Obama, because everything he attacks Obama on will be directly reflected back into his eyes blinding him. He has no ability to steer the debate, he will be forced to the prescripted plan the MSM and Obama lay before him. He has no ideas that the American people have been able to latch onto to spur them to action. He is not an inspiring person that will be able to get out the vote and no amount of money, as South Carolina proves, is going to make it happen. I do not think Romney is a sure loser in the general, but he certainly is not a sure winner. I also think the same of Gingrich, he is neither a sure winner nor a sure loser. Events happen, and they have a profound effect on the people voting or not voting. I am voting for Newt because he stands for what I believe in well enough that I will feel he is my personal representative in the white house.

I know Obama is going to have lots of money and attacks lined up. The thing I do not understand is how you think that Romney is going to stand a chance.

Romney hasn’t cheated on all of his wives. Romney wasn’t a lobbyist for Freddy Mac. Romney wasn’t brought up on ethics violations. Romney wasn’t the only Speaker of the house to be censured in US history!

He has no ability to steer the debate,

Trashing the media isn’t debating. There will be 3 debates against Obamas billion dollars of advertising.

I do not think Romney is a sure loser in the general, but he certainly is not a sure winner. I also think the same of Gingrich, he is neither a sure winner nor a sure loser.

Gingrich is a sure loser. Even if he wasn’t, he has a lousy character.

He’s a Washington lobbyist, getting paid millions of tax payer dollars for his influence from the same democrat cronies who brought us the housing bubble and the recession. And he’s running as an outsider…
That’s all.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Except that he wasn’t a lobbyist. He was a consultant. There IS a difference. Perhaps you should look it up.

Lying about it doesn’t do you any good as far as furthering your case.
In fact, all it does is make you look like a liar.

He’s a Washington lobbyist, getting paid millions of tax payer dollars for his influence from the same democrat cronies who brought us the housing bubble and the recession. And he’s running as an outsider…
That’s all.

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM

And btw, your mittens had a lot of money invested with the very people who are actually responsible for that housing bubble and the recession. The fund he invested in had over half of their $28.5Billion worth invested in Fannie & Freddie.
It would seem that mitt profitted rather handsomely from the bubble and the ensuing crash.

What does it say about you as a person when you attack an innocent man with accustions of being a dreaded lobbyist when you have no evidence but the man you are accusing has evidence to the contrary?

1.6 million dollars paid to Gingrich by Freddy and Fanny. End of story.
V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM

And yet, you make no accusations against the democrats hired as “consultants” by f&f. You accept that they were, indeed, consultants, rather than lobbyists (and for which service they were all paid more than Newt).

Yes. It does, indeed, look like you are tied to people who would see this country go down the drain.